6 ms·

A variant of this is to publicly display the logarithm of the score rounded up to an integer, maybe even as a number of stars. If the base-3 logarithm was used,

by ssp 15y ago

A variant of this is to publicly display the logarithm of the score rounded up to an integer, maybe even as a number of stars. If the base-3 logarithm was used, the displayed scores would be: -infinity to 0: bad comment, should be dimmed 1: 2-3: ★ 4-9: ★★ 9-27: ★★★ 27-81: ★★★★ 81-243: ★★★★★ etc. Though I think scores should be computed in a more sophisticated way than they are currently.

markkat 15y ago
I use something much like this on my forum and it seems to work well. People only need a general idea of the score for it to be informative of value.
ZachPruckowski 15y ago
If we're using stars, why not base stars on comment percentile? Every night at midnight, take all the comment scores for the last week, and determine the 90th, 70th, 50th, and 30th percentiles. So every comment in the top 10% gets 5 stars, every comment in the top 30% but not in the top 10% has 4 stars, etc. Also, I think we should switch it up so that comments are dimmed at more like -1 or -2. Otherwise, if the first vote is a downvote, people might overlook an otherwise decent (or controversial) comment.
- mishmash 15y ago
  > Also, I think we should switch it up so that comments are dimmed at more like -1 or -2. Otherwise, if the first vote is a downvote, people might overlook an otherwise decent (or controversial) comment. This is needed. I'm constantly upvoting valid, neutral things even if I don't really have an opinion on them simply because their first vote was down, likely by a disgruntled parent post.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    >likely by a disgruntled parent post. You've never been able to downvote replies to your own comments.
    - mishmash 15y ago
      Oh wow 3 years and I've never noticed. Haha tells you've I've never tried to then. ;)
    - Smirnoff 15y ago
      Unless they have a friend or a second account who can do it for them ;)
      - redthrowaway 15y ago
        The karma threshold for downvoting comments is 500, iirc. That would make socking a fairly laborious prospect. As for meatpuppetry, if you're going to go through that much trouble just to downvote someone, then I'd suggest you have deeper issues.
  - Unseelie 15y ago
    I'm often drawn to greyed things, as they're different...not sure how prevalent that reaction is, but its at least a counterweight to overlook.
- jasonlotito 15y ago
  Comment's should only reflect the current thread (well, everything underneath a news story). Not all stories receive the same traffic. A quality comment in one story might receive far less votes than a less quality comment in another story that is far more popular. However, that is merely the method, and the idea of identifying quality stories is still sound.
mortenjorck 15y ago
There's a lot of good thinking here, but all of these suggestions share the same failing as integer scores: They still don't preclude bandwagoning. A polarizing and emotional rant with a five-star/bright-green/100%-bar rating is barely less susceptible to mob voting than a polarizing and emotional rant with 55 points. That said, I don't think hiding scores is the only solution to this problem. I'd like to suggest an escape valve of sorts: If we accept that, from time to time, a bandwagon-bait comment will inevitably get voted up, we can consider a mechanism to deflate it. There is a simple way, to designate moderators who can demote these comments; then there is a more interesting way: I hypothesize that there is an observable pattern to the votes over time of bait comments. It would be very interesting to see a comparison of highly-rated comments through a histogram: Is there a particular curve that insightful comments follow? Do bait comments have a signature spike at their tipping point? Can these be modeled in a straightforward way? The system could then be set up to slow, halt, or even reverse upvoting when a comment fits the model.
- benwr 15y ago
  Is mob voting an observed problem with the old way? I seem to recall PG mentioning[1] that overall top comment scores are now /higher/ than before, suggesting that upvoters didn't mob in the old system, but based their votes on the perceived value of the comment vs its current score. Thus, instead of the prevalence of vote mobbing, a more important question is: Do you think a score should be based on a ternary choice between {good comment, indifferent, bad comment} summed over a large (sometimes not-so-large) group of votes, or based on the average of the community's perception of the comment's value on a sliding scale? [1]http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2465271 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2465271
  - patrickk 15y ago
    I think it would be a good idea to display the scores after you vote. That way you would know that you are upvoting a comment for it's merits, and it's not a case of mob mentality.
    - benwr 15y ago

by ssp 15y ago

markkat 15y ago

I use something much like this on my forum and it seems to work well. People only need a general idea of the score for it to be informative of value.

ZachPruckowski 15y ago

If we're using stars, why not base stars on comment percentile? Every night at midnight, take all the comment scores for the last week, and determine the 90th, 70th, 50th, and 30th percentiles. So every comment in the top 10% gets 5 stars, every comment in the top 30% but not in the top 10% has 4 stars, etc. Also, I think we should switch it up so that comments are dimmed at more like -1 or -2. Otherwise, if the first vote is a downvote, people might overlook an otherwise decent (or controversial) comment.

mishmash 15y ago
> Also, I think we should switch it up so that comments are dimmed at more like -1 or -2. Otherwise, if the first vote is a downvote, people might overlook an otherwise decent (or controversial) comment. This is needed. I'm constantly upvoting valid, neutral things even if I don't really have an opinion on them simply because their first vote was down, likely by a disgruntled parent post.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  >likely by a disgruntled parent post. You've never been able to downvote replies to your own comments.
  - mishmash 15y ago
    Oh wow 3 years and I've never noticed. Haha tells you've I've never tried to then. ;)
  - Smirnoff 15y ago
    Unless they have a friend or a second account who can do it for them ;)
    - redthrowaway 15y ago
      The karma threshold for downvoting comments is 500, iirc. That would make socking a fairly laborious prospect. As for meatpuppetry, if you're going to go through that much trouble just to downvote someone, then I'd suggest you have deeper issues.
- Unseelie 15y ago
  I'm often drawn to greyed things, as they're different...not sure how prevalent that reaction is, but its at least a counterweight to overlook.
jasonlotito 15y ago
Comment's should only reflect the current thread (well, everything underneath a news story). Not all stories receive the same traffic. A quality comment in one story might receive far less votes than a less quality comment in another story that is far more popular. However, that is merely the method, and the idea of identifying quality stories is still sound.

mortenjorck 15y ago

There's a lot of good thinking here, but all of these suggestions share the same failing as integer scores: They still don't preclude bandwagoning. A polarizing and emotional rant with a five-star/bright-green/100%-bar rating is barely less susceptible to mob voting than a polarizing and emotional rant with 55 points. That said, I don't think hiding scores is the only solution to this problem. I'd like to suggest an escape valve of sorts: If we accept that, from time to time, a bandwagon-bait comment will inevitably get voted up, we can consider a mechanism to deflate it. There is a simple way, to designate moderators who can demote these comments; then there is a more interesting way: I hypothesize that there is an observable pattern to the votes over time of bait comments. It would be very interesting to see a comparison of highly-rated comments through a histogram: Is there a particular curve that insightful comments follow? Do bait comments have a signature spike at their tipping point? Can these be modeled in a straightforward way? The system could then be set up to slow, halt, or even reverse upvoting when a comment fits the model.

benwr 15y ago
Is mob voting an observed problem with the old way? I seem to recall PG mentioning[1] that overall top comment scores are now /higher/ than before, suggesting that upvoters didn't mob in the old system, but based their votes on the perceived value of the comment vs its current score. Thus, instead of the prevalence of vote mobbing, a more important question is: Do you think a score should be based on a ternary choice between {good comment, indifferent, bad comment} summed over a large (sometimes not-so-large) group of votes, or based on the average of the community's perception of the comment's value on a sliding scale? [1]http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2465271 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2465271
- patrickk 15y ago
  I think it would be a good idea to display the scores after you vote. That way you would know that you are upvoting a comment for it's merits, and it's not a case of mob mentality.
  - benwr 15y ago